Friday, October 27, 2006
Judge hints at final ruling in ID case
From Gongwers (sub req'd):
Judge Marbley rejected an argument from Assistant Attorney General Richard Coglianese that enjoining the statute, and returning to previous rules, would create confusion and spark additional litigation over ballots already cast under the new regulations.Credit goes to attorneys Subodh Chandra and Caroline Gentry who presented the arguments before Marbley:
“If this statute is declared unconstitutional, we go back to the system we had before. It was not constitutionally infirm, and had not caused problems,” the judge said. “I’m not gong to be burdened by whether … (this) will be burdensome for some bureaucracy.”
“Does the address need to be current on the water bill? What is a government document? Well, this is another issue where you have different interpretations occurring across the state,” Mr. Chandra said. “Different counties have different interpretations.”
He said at least one absentee ballot applicant – an attorney – entered the wrong set of numbers from his driver’s license.
“This is not the best thought out statutory scheme in the world,” said Mr. Chandra.